Slashdot Mirror
New York City Orders Mandatory Measles Vaccinations in Brooklyn (providencejournal.com)
"New York City officials on Tuesday declared a public health emergency and ordered mandatory measles vaccinations" in an area where most of the state's 285 measles cases have occurred. The Washington Post reports:
New York's mandatory vaccination order in four Brooklyn zip codes is by far the toughest action to date by state or local officials, as the disease's tally grows to 465 cases in 19 states. Officials there and elsewhere have sought to bar unvaccinated children from schools and other public places but have had limited success... The mandate orders all unvaccinated people in four zip codes to receive inoculations, including children as young as 6 months. Anyone who resists faces a misdemeanor charge and could be fined up to $1,000.
Long-time Slashdot reader Major Blud shares a BBC report that under the order, "any person living in the affected areas who has not been vaccinated must be immunised within 48 hours."
Long-time Slashdot reader Major Blud shares a BBC report that under the order, "any person living in the affected areas who has not been vaccinated must be immunised within 48 hours."
Good. Their "rights" to liberty absolutely terminate when they endanger the lives of others.
Citizens must sue the city and file for an emergency injunction!
Injunction from a court has zero weight over the emergency powers of government executives.
(The emergency executive powers override any court issuances while the ordinary civil order is suspended)
I think that a way to fight this would be to "leak" a document to wikileaks pointing out that the autism vaccine rumor was spread by alquaeda as part of a plan to attack the population with measles.
Oh, and where did these measles infections come from? Third-world immigrants imported by the leftists against the will of these very people who are being targeted now?
We hear all the time how Republicans are the epitome of evil, how the orange man is soooo bad and all.
We *almost* had eradicated measles.
Think about that for a minute: all this hoopla about vaccinations causing autism and such could have been so much less by eliminating the very *need* to get vaccinated in the US, and enforcing vaccination on immigrants and travelers going outside the country. We could concentrate on eradicating the disease worldwide, since measles is one of the few diseases that meet the criteria of worldwide eradication.
Instead we let anyone walk into the country with no oversight *simply because* it creates problems that can be blamed on the president.
Which party is the truly evil one?
Before the vaccine, measles caused an average of about 2.6 million deaths per year.
You have a very funny idea of what constitutes a dangerous disease"
It's just that.
seems to be doing a good job spreading conspiracy and fomenting chaos in the West.. flat earthers, anti-vaxers, xenophobia, etc, etc,.... Humans are really stupid.
YOU DO NOT ENDANGER OTHERS IF YOU ARE NOT VACCINATED. You endanger yourself; it's to train your immune system. Yes, you could carry and spread it to other people WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED.
So people who refuse get sick and die because of their own decisions. That is the way it should be. Furthermore, remove the idiot warning labels on plastic bags etc.
Get away with this and you open up the door for future corrupt politicians to force things into your body against your will. Colon cancer is a real problem in the USA, why don't they force cameras up our colons while they are at it? (yes obviously you volunteer for that under the right conditions because who wants to die of that? but it's your choice and not a 1 size fits all policy which easily can be done 10x as much just to give more money to a lobby group.)
You think they just die in their homes? No. They go to some of the most expensive healthcare facilities in the world to be treated (i.e. NYC and USA in general), and ultimately costs our health system through resource utilization and direct/indirect costs that could be spent in far better ways..
In a dense dystopia like NYC, you can't do squat without messing up someone else, that's one of the psychological costs of that unsustainable life. You probably need tighter gun laws, restrictions on everything, as what you do impinges on others almost no matter what.
.
However, those of us who chose not to "enjoy" the "benefits" of living like rats in a cage, would prefer to keep our freedoms intact, not needing the restrictions to protect our neighbors as the big-city folk do. Small towns, with little or no anonymity, tend to eject the kinds of people who make NYC dangerous, and SF a place full of homeless, poop and needles in the public spaces. It doesn't take the cops to do this, or really any proactive action by the other citizens. It's just enough harder to make it that losers leave on their own.
.
Often one of the first comments of people who visit my place from some other country- say one in the EU, is how vast the US is, and how utterly varied from place to place. They fly into an airport 60 miles from here in a big city with the usual reprobates and nasty pollution and congestion, and an hour later they are in unspoiled nature like they've never seen at home. This is why one size fits all, and centralized government in general might be a crappy idea. Sure, there are cases where one size IS a decent fit, but mission-creep is inevitable and a function of human nature - governments always become larger and less accountable if it's possible to do - if for no other reason than to create more warm seats under a manager seeking a raise...
Including INFANTS who are TOO YOUNG to be vaccinated and might not live to see it because of your selfish dumb ass.
If you are vaccinated, shouldn't you not have to worry about getting measles? Only the un-vaccinated will be affected? Where is the problem?
As I said above, these people dont just die in their homes. They then go to some of the most expensive healthcare facilities in the world to be treated, wasting resources which could be better used elsewhere.
Then there is the exposure risk to infants too young to receive the vaccine. Should infants be exposed because some idiots think a measles vaccine is dangerous? Herd immunity only works if the herd all gets vaccinated...
A common misconception about vaccination is that it prevents infection. Vaccination only trains your own body's immune system to attack a disease after your system has been exposed to it. For some their vaccination wasn't good enough to build an immunity and others might have temporary or lasting immunity system problems. Even vaccinated people can get a disease, but it's generally less frequent and more mild overall.
Babies have to grow some before and other people have actual real problems taking a vaccine ever, those people rely on 'herd immunity'. I'm fairly certain that you too were at least once a baby.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
No vaccination is 100% effective. There will always be a small percentage of people who get vaccinated but do not become fully immune. With measles I believe it's 2-3 percent, which is still tens of thousands of people.
Even if you are immune, you can still potentially carry the virus with you. Measles virus can survive outside the body for several hours and still be infectious.
And you contradict yourself within three sentences:
1) "You do not endanger others if you are not vaccinated"
2) "You could spread it to other people who are not vaccinated"
So which is it? Are you not endangering others, or can you spread it?
=Smidge=
Fine. Don't get vaccinated. But remember, even if you tell me your kid, or you, is allergic to peanuts, I'll still eat my PBJ next to you.
You realize that this quite literally contradicts what you say literally two sentences later....
(emphasis mine) Other people who are not vaccinated are still "others"... whether you endanger yourself in the process is irrelevant.
And not all of these others even had any choice in the matter. You endanger people who could not receive a vaccination for medical reasons, and you endanger those for whom the vaccination was not 100% effective. This is not generally a problem by itself because the number of people who have a legitimate medical reason to not get a vaccination plus the number of people for whom the vaccination would not actually be effective in the event of exposure is quite small, small enough that if they were the only ones vulnerable, the danger to any of them is actually negligible.
Adding choice to be vaccinated or not changes the dynamic of this effective "herd immunity" entirely, and with every additional person that gets ill, the danger to everyone else who was vulnerable rises exponentially. In theory, it wouldn't be a problem if nobody ever contracted the illness in the first place, but as soon as one person does, the more unvaccinated or otherwise vulnerable people there are around them, the more quickly the virus will spread. The fact that it only will tend to affect these otherwise vulnerable people completely ignores the fact that not all of them had a choice in the matter, and in practice while the number of people who might choose to be unvaccinated may tend to outnumber those who did not make a choice to be vulnerable, during an outbreak, it is noteworthy that they rarely outnumber the ones who die, not surprising often owing to the same medical reasons for why they could not have received the vaccination in the first place, or why the vaccination they did receive was not effective.
And while I say the number of these people may be quite small, I only mean so statistically... in absolute terms, the number of people is still actually quite large,. so yes....you *DO* endanger others if you are not vaccinated. At the very least, you can certainly say that you endanger others if you should *choose* to not be vaccinated.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you are vaccinated, shouldn't you not have to worry about getting measles? Only the un-vaccinated will be affected? Where is the problem?
1> No vaccine is 100% effective. But vaccination can reduce the risk or the severity of the disease.
2. The population of Brooklyn is 2.65 million. You do not want a dangerously infectious disease to gain a foothold in a population that size.
3. There are legitimate medical reasons why everyone cannot be vaccinated. But you can protect the most vulnerable by immunizing those around them. Consider it a firewall..
4. We came within a hair of eliminating measles as we did smallpox. We could all-but-eliminate cervical cancer in the next generation. If we fail, the reason will there for veryone to see,
I saw a few comments here suggesting it was a Jewish thing. Seemed odd, so I did a quick google search and... turns out they were right.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Looks like the outbreak is indeed centered in the city's Orthodox Jewish community. That really is odd, as the objections seem to be based on false scientific claims, not superstitious or moral objections.
I don't see anything to connect is to immigration though. The Independent suggests the outbreak strain was brought back from Israel, but by tourists who went there for a festival and returned home with the virus incubating.
So does that mean that anti-vaxxers should be liable for any adverse effects from not vaccinating?
Everyone who either has a copy of your childhood vaccination records or knows where to go to find them (and can reasonably expect a copy still exists, can get one on a timely basis, etc.), raise your hand. For the rest of us, are the choices to accept a needle in the arm right now, or be branded a criminal and fork over $1k (and how does the latter accomplish anything useful other than to help subsidize the campaign)?
I understand people have strong feelings about this subject, but try to envision how you would feel about this jackbooted of an enforcement mechanism over something you don't feel as strongly about, or even oppose. I fear we may ultimately regret setting this precedent.
Impaired driving kills a lot of people. Over the last decade, chemical-impaired driving deaths have changed little, but the ratio of chemicals involved has changed.
Cannabis, which is becoming far more socially acceptable than it used to be, is replacing alcohol as a primary factor of impaired-driving crashes. The last traffic safety conference I attended had a break-out session on impairments, and cannabis is now involved in MORE crashes now than alcohol.
Really? Seriously? I'd like to see some backup on that.
A government entity is going to require people to undergo forced medical treatment and Slashdot is cheering?
Everybody is astonished that the Nazis managed to get an entire country full of intelligent and sane people to participate in atrocities. This is a perfect example of how that works.
I'm not sure that being anti-vax correlates especially well with trump supporters, or do you have some information to share on that ?
Nullius in verba
There is an enormous amount of research that backs up the claims, and the remarks of the "racist" poster are completely non-controversial among mainstream researchers of intelligence.
Secondly, IQ tests are provide increasingly better predictions for life outcomes the lower the score is. This is natural, because a person who is very intelligent has a lot more choices in life, including the choice to live as a childless hermit because he realizes that none of this matters anyway; in contrast, dumber people have fewer choices, and thus their outcomes are easier to predict.
In any case, you are confusing causation and correlation; you want it to be true that the more equality there is in education, the more equality there will be in IQ scores, but 50 years of actively trying to bring about such equality hasn't succeeded.
What you've really pointed out is the conclusion of the The Bell Curve, which is that disparities between groups disappear when you normalize for IQ; that is to say, IQ is the deciding factor for many life outcomes. However, the average IQ for one ethnicity does not seem to the be same as the average IQ for another ethnicity, which is why there are differences in outcome between group averages—it has nothing to do with "structural" racism, and cannot be fixed politically or culturally.
It is the case that the higher the IQ, the better the education tends to be; this does not mean that more education creates a higher IQ. Putting your child on the basketball team will not make him taller.
>"and ultimately costs our health system through resource utilization and direct/indirect costs that could be spent in far better ways.."
I will preface by saying I think it is crazy to not get vaccinations. And I certainly support developing them, making them available, and strongly encouraging their use through education. But your logic can easily lead to government control (banning or compulsory action) over just about anything- motorcycle driving, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, walking alone at night, having children, construction work, swimming, bicycling, having unprotected sex, using a mobile phone when not seated, most competitive sports, obsessively playing video games, using power tools, etc.
Everything we do has some amount of risk- and taking some risks is what makes live worth living. We can't have a free society if the argument that anything people do affects "other people" due to healthcare "direct and indirect costs" prevails. It is a very dangerous path- it can put too much power in the hands of not only government, but also private insurance companies.
In other words, he's just a complete idiot
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of the Jewish people there are natural born citizens . They do lead an insular lifestyle, but last I heard, that is not illegal.
You need to be more careful, your Nazi armband was showing just a bit there...
Forced-vax nazis bring out the iron boot, force people to undergo controversial medical procedures against their will
You're a fucking moron.
I don't respond to AC's.
Instead we let anyone walk into the country with no oversight *simply because* it creates problems that can be blamed on the president.
You're an idiot.
I don't respond to AC's.
The vaccine is only 97% effective and herd immunity requires about 93...95% immunity. There are people that cannot be vaccinated due to no fault of their own, in particular children too young. They will get sick though and have a real risk of permanent problems or long-term problems and a small risk of death. Want to restate your question?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
How can you be _this_ stupid and uninformed?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Babies inherent their parents immunity, when the parents are actually exposed instead of vaccinated.
Forcing generations of people to vaccinate ensures newborn babies have to get vaccinated as their system has been essentially weakened
Keep that in mind as well
Do you have any suggestions on proving *specific* people as responsible for an outbreak of a preventable disease?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Debunked, phony tests. https://ilikemyteeth.org/fluor...
If we stopping immigrants from arriving, we would reduce the number of infections transmitted from immigrants to America to pre-existing American citizens.
If we stopping sexual tourists from leaving, we would reduce the number of infections transmitted from Americans to people living in other nations.
But we're not actually going to build either wall, because global civilization is not a bubble enterprise.
People move around. That's a fact of life. How did H. luzonensis get to the Philippines? Somehow I don't think they flew in on a Dreamliner.
Nothing to keep in mind because that’s untrue 1. The caving stimulates an immune response to the same epitopes as a natural infection. 2. As stated above, a vaccine doesn’t stop a natural infection. It prepares you immune system to fight it off much more quickly. So people are still getting exposed to the natural disease AND fighting it off and surviving.
The immune system phenomenon you are talking about doesn’t work in the way you think it does.
How do they identify unvaccinated people? It is quite easy to produce a fake medical certificate. Who will search if the doctor that signed it exists, and if it does, if he/she really signed that paper?
Oprah isn't anti-vaxx, and neither is that goop quack Gwynneth Paltrow. Your guy Alex Jones, on the other hand...
If a mob boss drugs Sal and decapitates him, then, with the body in the trunk, he drives to the construction site to bury the body in concrete next to Hoffa, if he (sober) is rear-ended by an octogenarian (also sober) who fell asleep and didn't stop for the light, the crash will be:
"Alcohol involved" as at least one person at the scene was impaired.
"Speed related" because if the old person were driving slower he might not have crashed.
"Following too closely" as if the old person left more space, he might have been able to react.
They will then use "alcohol, speed, and tailgating" to target safe drivers in other situations. The statistics are lies. MADD "won" in the '90s, then turned into a teetotaler group intent on prohibition.
Learn to love Alaska
Today is the measles vaccine, tomorrow is Mr.Mengele trying out his concoctions on your kids. The State should not have a right to force to you ingest/inject anything into your body.
How can we be ok with abortions but force-vax people? Aren't those two actions contradictory? Please eat your PBJ.
The "who can't get a measles vaccine" includes every single person on the planet. The current CDC recommendation is to get the MMR vaccine at 12 to 18 months; that means that we are all susceptible at some point in our lives.
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
In the last few months of gestation, mothers will pass some immunity to their babies (through the placenta; Breast milk helps too), but clearly not as much as you think. In part because a baby isn't a direct copy of the mother, everyone's immune systems are different. However, once a baby's immunity system is fully formed (about 6 months after birth), it's important to as best as possible stay on schedule with every recommended vaccination. A strong natural and individual immune response from a vaccine is the best protection, both for the individual and society as a whole.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Alcoholic crashes involve people falling asleep. It's weariness that is the problem (and, of course, for a small fraction of people, alcohol makes them weary).
Falling asleep (behind the wheel or otherwise) due to alcohol consumption only happens to someone who is really blasted. Your ability to drive is affected well before you drink that much. From this article:
Alcohol is a substance that reduces the function of the brain, impairing thinking, reasoning and muscle coordination. All these abilities are essential to operating a vehicle safely.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Have you heard of Typhoid Mary?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
"If we regulate vaccines, we'll lose all our freedoms and become just like North Korea."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
By the way, "people who could not receive a vaccination for medical reasons" includes every single child under the age of 12 months. Anti-vaxxers hate babies.
You do not endanger people who ARE vaccinated. You put yourself at risk.
Other people who ALSO put themselves at risk are just as likely to catch germs from anybody including people who are vaccinated. You are no more to blame for their infection than they are THEMSELVES for not being vaccinated. It's their own dam fault if they get sick (generally speaking.) Not yours... unless you get sick and purposely go around coughing on everybody.
No, you are not endangering others by spreading something that gets around ANYWAY, immune people spread it around while their body is killing it; besides all the other vectors. It's a reduction of numbers game which is tough to verify given how you only get stats from sick people who were not immune; exposure rates I bet are unsubstantiated... you won't have much data on exposure. Not washing your hands and simple measures do far more good (there are viruses we don't have shots for.)
Actually, governments do round off tiny % exceptions on things and so do I. People die of unfortunate stuff; that is life. You can't save everybody no matter how extreme dystopia you create. That is reality.
NOTE: Some people can't get a vaccination. they are unlucky... like everybody was before whatever new discovery. Also, some people are harmed by some vaccinations for various reasons and governments knowingly approve with acceptable complication rates. Also unlucky people. Obviously you have to balance the actual pro/cons but you are allowing politicians make this decision for everybody with a poor track record and again, this is always going to be a tiny % who are screwed either way. But one is natural causes and the other has potential for abuse which could amount to more harmed people in the end. What you PUT IN YOUR BODY should be your gamble.
So all boys who are uncircumcised should be criminals too? You can find some bad looking stats on health issues for that... sway a local politician...
I know somebody who had a really bad reaction to a common immunization shot; far worse than if he simply caught the illness. unlucky. fortunately for him he asked specifically NOT to get it and his lawyer got him a nice retirement for the malpractice. HIS gamble and now he suffers (he'd trade the $ without hesitation.) Yes, like I said a tiny % is unlucky. The difference between either position is going to be a tiny % too... what and who decides the thresholds?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
contradictions are not always the case if you dig deeper. I wasn't being specific enough but also was trying to be more provocative to get people going. so troll isn't an unfair mod.
You can't get great data on exposure rates because you measure sick people who are not immune who obviously greatly reduce in numbers because vaccinations are extremely effective. Theory says there is less exposure. Try proving that. The data is on how effective the vaccination is; not exposure.
You are not responsible for spreading it unless you purposely or carelessly spread germs. Immune or not. The people who do not get vaccinated are to blame only for themselves. Being 1 of many natural exposure vectors doesn't prove anything unless do some action with 100% effective transfer rate. Yes, intent matters... and washing your hands is a big deal... I bet you proper hygiene does far more good than mandatory vaccinations. (good luck legislating that; even if you can enforce it people would revolt.)
Technically yes, and I wouldn't force you to prove some rounding error just to make the point that it does some good. The tiny % that suffer from shots etc. they are the price the government accepts when they set the threshold of legally approving of new medicine... who sets the threshold and what should it be? pro/con of tiny % are what this is all about. Should we make expanding gov power decisions over such tiny numbers of people (especially when tons more people die of things we don't touch politically... some which we need to.)
The PROBLEM here is that local politicians are deciding both those things and FORCING something in your body without your consent. Forced circumcision? similar political situation, less severe results but already has been a big issue for a long time. It's an example of where these things have actually gone.
FYI, I get vaccinated; no sympathy for those who do not. The rest are unlucky. that is life; not fair. Doesn't mean they get sick and die either--- humans survived without tech just fine... actually, those who didn't survive to reproduction is why we are here today overpopulating the planet. (yes, i did just troll there...)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Here is my 2 cents sense researching vaccines about 2 yrs ago. I was for vaccines up until I started seeing what is really happening. 1. Vaccination is not the same as immunization. ----Just because you get a vaccination doesn't mean you have an immunity to the virus like people believe. There is a failure rate. If you get the measles and get over it, your more likely to have a lifetime immunity than if you receive a vaccination. ---There is such a thing called vaccine shedding where people shed the actual virus. I question if these cases are being caused by the vaccine. As far I know we don't know. 2. Legally if you get a vaccine and are injured, the pharma aren't held liable. The Taxpayer is who pays after the individual goes through a quiet "special court" process. --In the news lately I've noticed a bunch of pushing "fear" about the measles to push bills through. This eliminates the right you have over your own body. If this continues soon they'll legalize the government to kill/rape you (really pharma) and you legally won't be able to do anything. 3. Some of the ingredients found in vaccines are: Thimerosal (mercury funny how they renamed mercury) Aluminum Formaldehyde last I checked none of those are safe. Many doctors / people want to see more studies to the vaccines to prove they're not doing other things to people like breast cancer or other cancers, autoimmune diseases, etc... What good is curing one virus if your increasing your risk of other disorders / diseases? End result is more profits for big pharma. Each vaccine is worth about $1B a year with no worry of being sued. Lastly vaccines are not safe and that was determined in 1985 when the government decided to protect vaccine manufactures. Anyone who says differently is lying or ignorant as to what a medical procedure is. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22)
Alternative: you pay more $ if you catch what you weren't vaccinated for. simple. no police state required.
So because they statistically raise healthcare costs, you want to force things into their bodies?
Criminalize sugar? Make Smoking illegal? Alcohol surely kills more than vaccinated people...
YES, a lot of people stay home when SICK or take precautions spreading it to other people. Maybe they end up in the hospital, maybe not. I had measles as a kid before I could get the shot (which I still got later.) I was lucky; costs to the system was negligible too. You do realize germs spread anyway right? immune people still spread germs. You could be immune and be fighting the thing off for weeks without knowing it.
DO you stay home or wear a mask or wash your hands when you get the flu? the flu is a top killer of old people and those shots suck (they only predict a few each year to protect against) so you do more by preventative measures than the shot does. Do you do any of that? How would you like a ticket for failing to wear a mask or wash your hands?
Not getting vaccinated is your own fault and giving to other people who do not get vaccinated is their fault (shared blame if they are careless or intentional)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Maybe people are actually getting injured or saying the studies have a conflict of interest. If manufactures have a bad batch of vaccines like the "cutter incident" will any of us hear about it in this day? (1) No vaccinemanufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22)
So you don't wash your hands etc or avoid visiting an infant when sick???
It's my right to do what you think is selfish. Voting Republican does more harm to others and that is still a right; some might say the other brand name/tribe is worse...
Children die. that sucks and that is natural. for all of human existence and it's also what evolved humanity. bad luck happens. Children are humans too, with equal rights and equal luck.
Think of the children is often a poor excuse always abused and so many are completely hypocrites about it too.
not sorry for trolling you. You also just assume that vaccinated people can't spread illness, pets, etc. They can. Also, vaccinations do not cover all versions of a virus but they do make people more careless. I've had chicken pox 2 times and the docs thought it was a error in paperwork (not believing me either) until a decade later when they learned there were 3 versions of it. The 2nd time I was careless because I thought I was immune.
If you care about children, take more precautions and maybe back up words with action on other topics instead of righteously patting yourself on the back just to feel good. Not likely actually doing something; righteousness is just emotional masturbation. like a lot of social media too.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"if I post a crazy strawman, I win the argument"
It makes perfect sense though that if *by your own choice* you have an increased risk you pay for that with your own money and not with society’s money.
> "If we regulate vaccines, we'll lose all our freedoms and become just like North Korea."
This is not regulation of vaccines. If we compel people, at gunpoint (which ultimately what laws are), do to things they don't want, that don't directly harm other people (but might harm other people who choose not to do things they don't want to do), we have certainly lost a freedom and entered a mindset that the government can compel anything because "scary".
Up next- somehow speech is violence. You can say things that upset people and they might do stupid things that harm themselves or others. So get the government to compel people what to say or ban what they can't say.
We have to decide to follow the word and spirit of the Constitution and generally leave people alone and constrain government. That is the primary value this country was founded on, it is what made us strong and successful and it is eroding away into a giant, expensive, safety-focused, oppressive, nanny-based "safe zone."
Except it's not really a strawman. Others here have already compared it to Nazi Germany.
I will decide all my vaccination for me, by my self.
At the time when this is being decided you haven't even made the decision not to shit your own diaper yet. You ain't deciding shit for yourself, you're only deciding if you're putting your children's lives on the line.
Some people's purpose in life is to serve as an example to others.
The suffering sick person in the family may be the best argument to get the rest vaccinated. Happens all the time; somebody gets cancer, friends and family or fans of the celebrity go get themselves screened. Maybe you could offset their medical bills slightly for doing such things... but I don't see any reason why preventable illnesses shouldn't COST you more because you made yourself more of a burden... The argument is used to get smokers in all kinds of ways (most often illegitimate but popular because it's viewed by the majority as a lower class minority group/tribe.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
lol @ mercola link
I see, refusing a vaccination causes no harm to others.
Would you agree that being an uninsured driver also causes no direct harm to others? It's a victimless crime, right?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
>> that don't directly harm other people
> I see, refusing a vaccination causes no harm to others.
It causes no DIRECT harm to others.
>"Would you agree that being an uninsured driver also causes no direct harm to others?"
I do agree. It causes no direct harm to other drivers. Both have the potential to indirectly cause harm, given the right circumstances.
>"It's a victimless crime, right?"
Not having car insurance? Correct. IF there were an accident and IF it were their fault and IF they had no insurance and IF they had no resources to pay for the damages, then there would be an "unwhole" party.
>"You should read up on the slippery-slope logical fallacy."
The "slippery slope" is a very real phenomenon, it is not always a fallacy.
I see, the person without insurance has deprived another of property and therefore of personal liberty, but this is fine because freedom.
This reminds me of that slogan in Orwell's 1984: "Freedom is slavery!"
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
he objection to one size fits all is what resonates with me. I fully understand that things are vastly different in NYC vs my rural nature preserve. I can swing my arms as much as I want with no danger of breaking someone's nose, and if I want to set off a few lbs of dynamite on my back 40, no one cares unless I fail to invite them to see the show.
That's great and all, but you're still going to get your fucking shots.
Smallpox was finally eradicated by tracking every last infection on the planet and inoculating a remote village in Somalia to prevent spreading the disease from the last victim. Yes, Somalia, that bastion of libertarian freedom.
You will be inoculated. We're not going to allow your little rural dystopia to act as a reservoir for an infectious disease that can later break out and wreak havoc in a higher density population. And we might prevent your rural dystopia from being completely depopulated along the way.